236
THE GREEN BAG
Minister of State, January 12, 1877, relating to judicial procedure with respect to the trial of American citizens residing in Span ish territory, charged with the violation of Spanish laws, and concerning the trial of Spanish subjects in the United States, charged with criminal offenses. In its pre amble, the protocol stated the desire of the two governments "to terminate amicably all controversy as to the effect of existing treaties in certain matters of judicial procedure," and it purported therefore "to make declaration on both sides as to the understanding of the two Governments in the premises, and respecting the true appli cation of said treaties." l After the ratification of the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, Pres ident Polk sent Messrs. Sevier and Clifford to Mexico to explain certain amendments which had been made by the Senate. Be fore the arrival of those gentlemen at their destination the treaty had been ratified by Mexico. Before the exchange of ratifica tions, however, they concluded with the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs a proto col purporting to be an explanation of the meaning of the treaty. In a message dated February 8, 1849,* the President stated, "Had the protocol varied the treaty as amended by the Senate, it would have no binding effect." * An agreement of great importance other than a treaty was the "Final Protocol," signed by the Hon. W. W. Rockhill, Special Commissioner, representing the United States, together with representatives of 1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 1030. 1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 692. 1 IV, Richardson's "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," p. 679 at p. 682. In 1887 the American Minister to France asked permission to sign a protocol, explanatory of the meaning of the Cables Convention of March 4, 1884. Secretary Bayard replied, "You may sign , subject to Senate's approval." His instructions to the Min ister are contained in U. S. For. Rel. 1887 p. 276.
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Russia, on the one side. and representatives of China on the other, on September 9, 1901. The agreement con tained the foundation for re-establishment of relations between China and the Powers and set forth the method of their readjust ment. Undertakings of far-reaching char acter were imposed upon China. The pro tocol declared the formal compliance with the previous demands of the Powers which have been classified under four heads: "(i) Adequate punishment for the authors of and those guilty of actual participation in the anti-foreign massacres and riots; (2) the adoption of measures necessary to prevent their recurrence; (3) the indemnifi cation for losses sustained by states and foreigners through these riots; and (4) the improvement of our relations, both official and commercial, with the Chinese Govern ment and with China generally." l It is impossible to summarize the results of this examination of the practice of our government. It must be assumed that in each case where an agreement other than a treaty has been negotiated with a friendly state there has been a sincere belief on the part of the Executive that the Constitu tion has not been violated, and that a valid international compact has been negotiated. If the President in many instances, such as have been cited, may lawfully contract with foreign nations, without the advice and consent of the Senate, no constitutional declaration is needed in order to attach a legal consequence to a compact so concluded, and render it binding upon the United States. As a result of its membership in the family of civilized states, this country of necessity recognizes as a part of its local law, the law of nations. According to that law, agree ments of the United States, not in violation of the Constitution or of the accepted public 1 Report of Hon. W. W. Rockhill to the Sec retary of State, Nov. 30, 1901. Appendix, U. S. For. Rel. 1901, "Affairs in China," p. 3, at p. 4.
